Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: a refresh cadence (every 30 minutes), provenance ('computed from the data'), and a legal/usage caveat that the consensus odds line is information only and not betting advice — an agent-relevant constraint found nowhere in the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence that opens with the core object ('what the database holds... year by year') and then enumerates the covered facets, followed by a short second sentence on computation and refresh. Dense and generally efficient, though the long parenthetical clause adds a little clutter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly — facets covered, grouping by promotion and year, and result-recency. Only minor gaps remain (e.g. whether the response is nested objects or a flat table), which is acceptable at this level of granularity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single 'org' parameter has 100% schema description coverage including an enum of five promotion slugs and the 'omit for every covered promotion' default behaviour. The description restates the per-promotion scope but adds no syntax or filtering nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description makes clear this is a data-availability/coverage report, enumerated per promotion and per year, listing exactly which facets are covered (events, settled bouts, per-fight stats, round-by-round stats, scorecards, odds line) plus latest-result recency. That is specific enough to separate it from siblings like get_usage, get_year_stats or get_org, though the verb phrase ('What the database holds for...') is indirect rather than an explicit 'Report coverage of...'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given, even though near-neighbours (get_usage, get_year_stats) exist in the toolset. Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the pre-flight check for which promotions/years have data and how fresh it is, partly reinforced by the 'refreshed every 30 minutes' note.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.